Overall, it’s a pretty economically-successful group, though: http://registeredrep.com/wealthmanagement/wealth_managers_target_gay_lesbian_market/
So, what if he does get some money behind him?
He hits a predictable brick wall within the Republican Party, assuming he falls into enough money to wage a decent campaign from this hypothetical source.
I actually think very many Republicans would vote for a gay Republican eons before they’d ever be caught dead voting Democrat. Quite a few Republicans I’ve known over the years, straight and gay, are they type who simply need to be told what to do by their party leadership, whoever that happens to be.
I’m a native Californian. All those things you said are true, but they don’t really relate to the three issues (four, if you count being openly gay) I mentioned. Those aren’t anywhere near the Republican party positions even in California.
There probably were some but nobody knew it. There might have even been some gay presidents that never
came out of the closet.
Just saying, ya know.
The highest ranking and documented of a gay official I know was J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI. His assistant was hired
strictly because he was gay and they lived together for a long time and I think he even got Hoover’s will.
Agents called them Johnny and Clyde but not to their faces.
I forgot to mention that Hoover was the only official who knew that
Philby, the Russian double agent from England and turned all their
secrets plus some of ours over the Ruskies was a traitor.
He also knew he was homosexual. You know, from one gay to
another.
Hoover is speculated to be gay, but I don’t think its really “documented” anymore then speculations about Abraham Lincoln mean that he’s been “documented” to be gay. Hoover certainly wasn’t openly homosexual, and so all we have is rumors and the fact that he was obviously very close to his Associate Director.
Well, that’s a term from an old article I read on this site but here’s a pic of Johnny and Clyde relaxing together on the beach so that’s
documentation. They have their clothes on but this shows them together during non-duty hours. They often vacationed together,
dined out together and took meals together.
I was right too that Clyde got Hoover’s entire estate and is buried just a few yards from him.
Rumor has it that the mafia had evidence on his gaydom which is
why he never seriously went after them. He supposidly had a file
on Eleanor Roosevelt’s alleged lesbian encounters.
The Russians knew about his gaydom and tried to discredit him and like I said, even his own agents called them Johnny and Clyde.
That’s plenty of documentation in my book.
See the pic of them sunbathing together.
If by “national office”, you mean president-vice president, that’s true, but Congressman Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin was reelected after he had been outed on the floor of the US House of Representatives, no less. Likewise, Arizona congressman Jim Kolbe was outed in 1996 by a gay rights group after his vote for the Defense of Marriage act, and he was in Congress until he resigned in 2006.
You asked why he’s running as a Republican, and I gave the reasons. The issues you mentioned (gays, abortion, Iraq war, marijuana) are not defining for the kind of Republican Karger is, and plenty of California Republicans just don’t give a crap about them. Social conservatism is a big loser in the large population centers, where Karger is active.
On Condi Rice:
I know its off-topic and quite late, but it seems to me that conservatives aren’t the ones who have trouble with Condi (or Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, Larry Elder, etc.) being black. The people who believe that political views are somehow innately determined by skin color are the ones who have the problem with it. If you want any evidence, check out some political commentary and see who mentions these people’s race most often.
A similar principle is at work with the gay presidential candidate. I don’t hear Obama touting his heterosexuality every day and making it the centerpiece of his identity. If a president were gay and treated it the same way, I’m sure many people wouldn’t even notice.
Cliff’s Notes version: Identity politics are stupid.
Your book has a defective definition for “documentation.”
Penderel, people shouldn’t care about a candidate’s skin color (unless it’s colloidal-silver blue) or sexual orientation, but that doesn’t change the fact that many people do care about those things.
I agree, but my point was that there are a lot of snarky comments about conservatives not liking black candidates, or women, or homosexuals, and the people bringing up race, gender, and sexual preference are almost always liberals (or, at least, anti-conservatives).
The people (in the media, I mean) who purport to be the most accepting are typically the ones who attack politicians based on race, gender, etc. Look at how Condoleeza (sp?) Rice has been attacked over the years simply because she dared to not fit the racial stereotype (black women MUST be flamingly liberal) as determined by folks who label themselves tolerant and accepting.
Prejudice will never be totally erased, as people will attack others based on their differences (the most obvious of which would be their appearance, i.e. skin color). But the notion that someone like Ms. Rice is not accepted by conservatives because she has been marginalized and attacked by left-wing pundits and politicians is glaringly flawed logic.
It sounds like you’re recasting attacks against bigoted attitudes as themselves being bigoted.